Many of the “scholars par excellence” and eminent ‘academics’ who graduated with their British thinking caps writing about Janet Jagan (the wife of Guyana’s first Indo-Caribbean and first Caribbean Hindu President Dr. Cheddi Jagan) are just giving a landscape of flowery history overgrown with fancy words but no analytical or critical thinking concerning the actions of any of the historical figures involved. Indians are doing what Indians do best. Swallow and Regurgitate. Indians swallow and regurgitate colonial hogwash, history, ideology and the like without ever analyzing and logically questioning the narratives they were taught in ‘Colonial High,’ believing with all their heart they have been freed. However, physical independence doesn’t mean psychological independence. To truly serve a plateful of the truth Indians must employ critical thinking in their analysis of our heroes before they are anointed with ‘malas’ of our undying gratitude.
As for Janet Jagan we must first ask about her origins, her history and hence her mentality. Only then can we understand a person’s motive. After that we must look at their actions and the outcome. We must bravely ask if what they did served the betterment of the Indian Community and/or in some cases the Hindu community depending on the context. Who benefited from these actions and did we end up better off in the end?
In the curious case of Janet Jagan, one must ask was she right or wrong with her Socialist ‘baptism’ over Indo-Guyanese intellectual heads, in order to understand whether future Prime Minister/ President Janet Jagan did wrong to the Indian race or not? I am of the belief that she indeed did wrong. I will illustrate my positions by using some examples.
In India, SECULARISM was originally not part of the Indian Constitution but it was inserted in the Indian Constitution by the Socialist Congress Party to accommodate Muslims and Christians to fit in a Hindu Rashtra (State) and to destroy Indian/Hindu Nationalism. Secularism was not only the plot to destroy India and Hinduism by using it to shower minorities (minority religions in this case) with the goods of minority appeasement politics, it was used to take power away from Hindus using the legal means of the constitution and was gracefully enacted when Indira Gandhi called for “Emergency.” Indira Gandhi used the chaos of “Emergency” to pursue the slow death of India and Hindus with the thousand cuts of “secularism.” This created a powerful politically dominant elite minority of Christians and Muslims who then used all of the perks of secularism to stand on the backs of Hindus politically and economically enslaving one billion Hindus in their own lands. This minority came into control of all of India’s institutions that controlled the narrative of Hindus in academia, entertainment (Bollywood) and politics. The rise of the Hindu Right in India is a reaction to the bias, discrimination and other economic and political persecution Hindus have been facing under the Gandhi-Nehru Congress since Independence. However, this was never true secularism but the face of Hindumisia (Hindu-hate/bashing) disguising itself as secularism and democratic values to the rest of the world while Hindus began to lose their culture, religion, lands, temples and much more through corrupt laws and bureaucracy.
On the question of God, whomever has the monopoly on ‘God’ also owns the ‘WILL’ of the people. The Abrahamic religions push this narrative to control their masses. God is an Arab from the Semitic religions so to communicate with God one must speak His chosen language, face in a particular direction and use His holy language, anything else is blasphemy. This narrative destroyed most of the world’s pagan religions and continues to eat at Hinduism.
The same goes with Black Lives Matter [BLM]; they own the narrative in America by convincing white people to surrender to blacks by making them feel guilty for past and present racisms. However, in this narrative it does not simply require equality and an apology but the entire downfall, destruction and complete surrender politically, economically and otherwise of the white race and even Christendom in the western world. They have fashioned their own narrative on God and what the chosen son looked like.
In Trinidad, Blacks own the narrative by getting black and Indian scholars to support Socialism to break Indian Nationalism while at the same time Afro-Trinidadian/Afro-Caribbeans are holding onto Pan-Africanism. They teach one-love, one-race, unity “here every creed and race find an equal place,” and “together we aspire.” All the while every Indian knows that is as far from the truth as possible. While Indians are preaching one-love to each other and becoming more and more docile and losing their culture, religions and everything else, other ethnic groups are growing stronger politically day by day while the Indians get taxed to fund their own downfall. This is not what socialism was supposed to be according to the principles we were taught but the ugly truth is socialism always has a victim and a perpetrator. If Africans are the victims of injustice and poverty then the indentured Indians (who did not enslave them,) must always pay to help them, hence we must become the perpetrators in the narrative. Indians are seen as economically well off and so we owe everybody else while that wealth actually comes from blood, sweat, tears and hard work despite the political persecution in the Caribbean including genocide and rape in Guyana. Indians could never be the perpetrators as Indians never had enough political power to enact any imperialism. Under this pseudo-socialism and pseudo-secularism is the art of breaking (in this case) Indian Nationalism. By breaking Indian Nationalism in the Caribbean they are destroying our political unity to defend ourselves and our way of life through the use of narratives.
Janet Jagan originally, Janet Rosenburg was a Jew who originated from Eastern Europe. My point is not about whether she had terrible intentions for Indians or not. She might as well have meant well but she was not of Indian descent and the danger being is that she was allowed to weave the narrative for Guyanese Indians just as European Italian Catholic Sonia Gandhi is head of the Congress Party and weaving a narrative for Indian Hindu majority India. What could go wrong? During Sonia’s reign most of India’s tribal North East areas were converted under the church to Christianity in the 90s in a span of a decade. I’m sure these are just coincidence. Nepal which was once a Hindu State a few years ago is now a secular state under socialist communist government control through which Nepal is now being fully converted to Christianity at an alarming rate. Nepal is the birthplace of Sita, the wife of Lord Rama.
Janet Jagan created a narrative that suited her means and her survival in Guyana so she could fit in and she could lead. How could she find a place for herself in a Guyana unless she twisted a narrative among Indians that had to first break Indian Nationalism to include herself? This breaking of Indian Nationalism broke Indian unity politically. Being a Jew, had Janet Jagan immigrated to Israel the question about socialism would not have been of any interest because she would have been assimilated perfectly. She would have felt she belonged and fitted in easily. She would not feel the need to carve out a narrative that broke Jewish unity just to blend in. She would have been part of the Jewish Nationalism not against it. Would Janet Jagan have compromised Jewish unity as she did Indian unity? Jews in Europe were unable to fit in as a European race, whereupon the Jewish German Karl Marx and Jewish Russian Leon Trotsky in order to fit in socially and politically attempted to destroy European Nationalism by introducing Socialism/ Communism which had an even more dire effect on Europe causing massive revolution and genocide. In America, most Jews were semi-Capitalists owning factories but yet they subscribed to liberal socialists views to fit in socially with America’s Protestant Anglo-Saxon Whites.
My point is not that Janet Jagan did wrong because she was a Jew. In fact India and Israel in my view are natural allies owing to socio-political circumstance. It’s not even about whether her intentions were genuine or not. I certainly think she had genuine intentions unlike the tactless meditated conscious anti-Hindu positioning of the Gandhis towards Hindu India. My point in all of these examples regardless of race or religion is that a group of people cannot have a complete stranger hold the reigns of their narratives through history, culture, entertainment etc. because they will have the power to control your political destiny. I might consider myself a great intellect but even I should not be in control of the European, Jewish, Chinese or African narrative and neither should they be in control of ours. One can add to the intellectualism of a civilization but if you don’t originate form that community you should not be given any control of it. The survival of one’s civilization, culture and religion cannot be in the hands of foreigners, they may not have your best interests and even their good intentions could be at your civilizational expense.
When Mrs. Janet Jagan arrived in Guyana with her socialist ideas she had to destroy Indian Nationalism by means of Cheddi Jagan to win over the Indian base. By destroying Indian Nationalisms in Guyana, Mrs. Jagan committed a huge cultural crime that left the Indian race like a wandering race ironically, the same way Jews had disconnected from their culture and roots in Europe which caused their own downfall politically. The mistake our Indian intellectual leadership across the world have made is to put our narratives and hence our civilizational survival in the hands of others. We can only pray the Gods allow Modi to undo the damage the Gandhis have done in India with their false secularism, false socialism and false sense of democracy.